Entrepreneurship in an Institutionally Distant Context: Bangladeshi Diaspora Entrepreneurs in Denmark

  • Mohammad B. RanaEmail author
  • Foujia Sultana Nipa
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)


Extant studies have not highlighted how country of origin (COO) and country of residence (COR) in institutionally distant context shape diasporans’ behaviour, rationales, and capabilities, leading to the growth and success of entrepreneurial ventures in the COR; our paper contributes to this gap.

Investigating seven cases (micro, small, and medium enterprises) of Bangladeshi diasporans’ in Denmark, our study presents an in-depth understanding of the impact of dual institutional characteristics, whereby the relatively higher importance of COR institutional features shape diaspora entrepreneurial motivation and management. Motivation and management styles vary due to the length of a diaspora’s stay in the COR, their educational background, relevant previous experience, and degree of social integration in the COR. Some important personality traits, which are shaped by dual institutional features, determine the degree to which diaspora can develop cultural intelligence and social capital in the COR context. This helps the diaspora develop suitable entrepreneurial capabilities to grow the venture, while the personality traits and social capital derive from the diasporans’ educational background and involvement in sports and social activities in the Danish context. This study postulates four broad categories of motivational factors, namely (a) income security and financial success, (b) social recognition and status, (c) work achievement, and (d) independence and autonomy of work, which manifest different types of entrepreneurship depending on the diaspora’s personal background and the nature of the Danish (COR) institutional features. We find a mixed influence of COO and COR institutions on various features of management. Finally, we develop an analytical model, called the ‘House Model’, to explain diasporas’ venture creation and venture management processes in an institutionally distant context and argue that researchers should take into account both the COO’s and COR’s institutional features when examining the growth and survival of diaspora entrepreneurship. Our study contributes to the understanding and practice of transnational diaspora entrepreneurship and management as well as policy formulation by institutional actors.


Transnational diaspora Entrepreneurship and management Institutional distance and institutionalism Comparative business systems 


  1. Akehurst G, Simarro E, Mas-Tur A (2012) Women entrepreneurship in small service firms: motivations, barriers and performance. Serv Ind J 32(15):2489–2505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aziz N, Friedman BA, Bopieva A, Keles I (2013) Entrepreneurial motives and perceived problems: an empirical study of entrepreneurs in Kyrgyzstan. Int J Bus Res 18(2):163–176Google Scholar
  3. Bae J-H, Salomon R (2010) Institutional distance in international business research. In: Devinney T, Pedersen T, Laszlo T (eds) The past, present and future of international business and management, advances in international management, vol 23. Emerald Group, BingleyGoogle Scholar
  4. Benzing C, Chu HM, Kara O (2009) Entrepreneurs in Turkey: a factor analysis of motivations, success factors, and problems. J Small Bus Manag 47(1):58–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger PL, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality. Doubleday Anchor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Brinkerhoff JM (2016) Institutional reform and diaspora entrepreneurs – the in-between advantage. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clausen L (2006) Intercultural organizational communication: five corporate cases in Japan. CBS Press, FrederiksbergGoogle Scholar
  8. Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica, New Series 4(16):386–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins CJ, Hanges PJ, Locke EA (2004) The relationship of achievement motivation to entrepreneurial behavior: a meta-analysis. Hum Perform 17(1):95–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Covin JG, Green K, Slevin DP (2006) Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial orientation-sales growth rate relationship. Entrep Theory Pract 30(1):57–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Decker A (2015) Transnational entrepreneurship and opportunity recognition. In: 1st Global diaspora business conference 2015Google Scholar
  12. Dej D, Stephan U, Gorgievski M (2012) Subjective entrepreneurial success: development of a multidimensional measurement instrument. In: Academy of management annual meeting, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48(2):147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drori I, Honig B, Wright M (2009) Transnational entrepreneurship: an emergent field of study. Entrep Theory Pract:1–16Google Scholar
  15. Edelman FL, Brush GC, Manolova ST (2010) Start-up motivations and growth intentions of minority nascent entrepreneurs. J Small Bus Manag 48(2):174–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elo M (2013) Diaspora entrepreneurs in and from an emerging market – narratives from Uzbekistan. 12th Vaasa conference on international business, Vaasa, Finland, 21–23 Aug 2013Google Scholar
  17. Elo M (2016) Typology of diaspora entrepreneurship: case studies in Uzbekistan. J Int Entrep 14(1):121–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Estrin S, Mickiewicz T, Stephan U (2013) Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrep Theory Pract 37(3):479–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fernández-Serrano J, Romero I (2012) Entrepreneurial quality and regional development: characterizing SME sectors in low income areas. Pap Reg Sci 92(3):495–513Google Scholar
  20. Gartner WB, Mitchell TR, Vesper KH (1989) A taxonomy of new business ventures. J Bus Ventur 4(3):169–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghauri PN, Firth R (2009) The formalization of case study research in international business. Markt 48:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giacomin O, Janssen F, Pruett M, Shinnar RS, Llopis F, Toney B (2011) Entrepreneurial intentions, motivations and barriers: differences among American, Asian and European students. Int Entrep Manag J 7(2):219–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gorgievski M, Ascalon ME, Stephan U (2011) Small business owners’ success criteria, a values approach to personal differences. J Small Bus Manag 49(2):207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hansemark OC (2000) Predictive validity of TAT and CMPS on the entrepreneurial activity, ‘start of a new business’: a longitudinal study. J Manag Psychol 15:634–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansemark OC (2003) Need for achievement, locus of control and the prediction of business start-ups: a longitudinal study. J Econ Psychol 24:301–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hortoványi L (2012) Entrepreneurial management (doctoral dissertation). Corvinus University of Budapest, Department of Strategic Management, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson G, Deeg R (2008) Comparative capitalisms: understanding institutional diversity and its implications for international business. J Int Bus Stud 39:540–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jayawarna D, Rouse J, Kitching J (2011) Entrepreneur motivations and life course. Int Small Bus J 31(1):34–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Josafath JF (2014) Management styles in Denmark. Accessed 23 Mar 2016
  30. Kruja A (2014) Entrepreneurial orientation as a performance promoter of business organizations. In: International conference on entrepreneurship IEC, 2014Google Scholar
  31. Kuada J (2015) Entrepreneurship in Africa – a classificatory framework and a research agenda. Afr J Econ Manag Stud 6(2):148–163Google Scholar
  32. Lachman R (1980) Toward measurement of entrepreneurial tendencies. Manag Int Rev 20(2):108–116Google Scholar
  33. Lewis RD (2006) When cultures collide: leading across cultures. Nicholas Brealey InternationalGoogle Scholar
  34. Lumpkin GT, Dess GG (1996) Clarifying entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad Manag Rev 21(1):135–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McClelland DC (1965) Achievement and entrepreneurship: a longitudinal study. J Pers Soc Psychol 1:389–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyer HH, Walker WB, Litwin GH (1961) Motive patterns and risk preferences associated with entrepreneurship. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 63(3):570–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller D (1983) The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Manag Sci 29(7):770–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morgan G, Campbell J, Crouch C, Pedersen OK, John C (2010) Introduction. The Oxford handbook of comparative institutional analysis. Oxford Handbooks OnlineGoogle Scholar
  40. Nkongolo-Bakenda J-M, Chrysostome EV (2013) Engaging diasporas as international entrepreneurs in developing countries: in search of determinants. J Int Entrep 11(1):30–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oviatt BM, McDougall PP (1994) Toward a theory of international new ventures. J Int Bus Stud 25(1):45–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Phillips N, Tracey P, Karra N (2009) Rethinking institutional distance: strengthening the tie between new institutional theory and international management. Strateg Organ 7(3):339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rana MB (2014) Rethinking business system theory from the perspective of civil society, transnational community, and legitimacy: strategies of European MNCs in Bangladesh. Department of Business and Management, Aalborg University, pp 144–148Google Scholar
  45. Rana MB (2015) Tri-Space framework for understanding MNC behaviour and strategies: an institutionalism and business system perspective. In: Marinova ST (ed) Institutional impacts on firm internationalization. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Rana MB, Elo M (2016) Diaspora, civil society actors, emerging market entry. In: Elo M, Riddle L (eds) Diaspora and business. Inter-Disciplinary Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Rana MB, Elo M (2017) Transnational diaspora and civil society actors driving MNE internationalization: the case of Grameenphone in Bangladesh. J Int Manag 23(1):87–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rana MB, Morgan G (2015) A systematic review of literature using business systems theory: lessons for international business research, EIBA 2015 conference proceedings. European International Business Academy, Rio, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  49. Rana MB, Sørensen OJ (2014) Sentiments that affect socio-political legitimation of TNCs in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan: sustainable strategic management from an institutional perspective. J Trans Manag 19(1):62–106Google Scholar
  50. Rauch A, Wiklund J, Lumpkin GT, Frese M (2009) Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: an assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrep Theory Pract 33(3):761–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Redding G (2005) The thick description and comparison of societal systems of capitalism. J Int Bus Stud 36(2):123–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Riddle L, Brinkerhoff J (2011) Diaspora entrepreneurs as institutional change agents – the case of Int Bus Rev 20(6):670–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scott WR (2008) Institutions and organisations: ideas and interests, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  54. Thelen K, Steinmo S (1992) Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. In: Steinmo S, Thelen K, Longstreth F (eds) Structuring politics: historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  55. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science, New Series 185(4157):1124–1131.Google Scholar
  56. Whitley R (1992) European business systems: firms and markets in their national contexts. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Whitley R (2007) Business systems and organisational capabilities: the institutional structuring of competitive competences. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whitley R (2010) The institutional construction of firms. In: Morgan G, Campbell JL, Crouch C, Pedersen OK, Whitley R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative institutional analysis. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  59. Wiklund J, Shepherd D (2003) Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strateg Manag J 24(13):1307–1314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Xu D, Shenkar O (2002) Institutional distance and the multinational enterprise. Acad Manag Rev 27(4):608–618Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business ManagementAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.International Business CentreAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations